3 ms·
Right, but then you go on to pat the people doing it on the back, followed by an "acceptance of rebuke". This kind of doublespeak is what's disruptive in these
by _ktx2 4y ago
Right, but then you go on to pat the people doing it on the back, followed by an "acceptance of rebuke". This kind of doublespeak is what's disruptive in these conversations and makes people not trust each other or their intentions.
If we do end up in a place where we ban guns, the backlash of that will probably be to ban things that other interest groups like that "cause harm" with similar statistics. I find that expressly illiberal, and I'm not really a fan of what a small minority of vocal liberals really want, which is to ban them or make the system so frustrating that no one can enjoy them.
- lucozade 4y agoGuns murder a lot of people in the US. Having fewer and less potent guns is better. Not good but better. I applaud people who are trying to make things better because the status quo in the US is shockingly bad. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your second paragraph. I'm not really that bothered if people stop being able to enjoy weaponry. I also don't particularly blush at being called illiberal. Or indeed liberal. I do care that a country that was once admired and respected has become a thing of pity and disgust. I take no pleasure in that. That the beacon of democracy is also a beacon of wanton violence is something to be saddened by. And I am.